Quality parameters of wheat.Quality parameters of wheat.

BiBio-o-ethanol ethanol versusversus breadbread??

Pál SZAKÁL1 – Rezső SCHMIDT1 – Juraj LESNY2 – Renátó KALOCSAI3 – Margit BARKÓCZI1

1 University of West Hungary, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Mosonmagyaróvár

2 Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, 917 01 Trnava, SK.

3 UIS Ungarn Laboratories, Mosonmagyaróvár

6th ALPS-ADRIA SCIENTIFIC WORKSHOP

30 April - 5 May, 2007 Obervellach, Austria

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUSTAINABILITY

Decrease of fossil energy carriers

Bio-ethanol is a potential replacement of oil and natural gas

The increasing importance of high-starch content plants (Wheat, maize)

Bio-ethanol, bio polymers, dextrin, starch syrup, D-glucose, etc.

EU’s cereal production 285 million tons; Hungary’s cereal production 6 million tons

1 l bio-ethanol appr. 3.1 kg wheat, 2.8 kg maize. (Maize germ)

6 H2O + 6 CO2 C6H12O6

(C6H10O5)n + n H2O nC6H12O6

C6H12O6 2CH3 – CH2 – OH + 2CO2

h

amilase

CH3 CH3

CH3 C – OH + HO – CH2 – CH3 = CH3 C – O – CH2 – CH3

CH3 CH3 ETBE

Why to use bio-ethanol?

1. Environmental reasons. Glasshaouse effects, climate change.

2. Ceasing the dependance on crude oil.

STARCH

GLUCOSE

ALCOHOL

Starch, cellulose, inulinSaccharose containing materials (sugar beet, sorghum, etc.)

Decomposition of starch (cooking with thermo stabile -amylase;Hydrolysis (gluco-amilase)

Fermentation

The production of bio-ethanol

Plant Yield Transformation efficiency

%

Ethanol yield

tha-1 totalmillion t

lt-1 lha-1

Sugar beet

38.0 143.0 35 95 4300

Wheat 3.5 82 24 356 1200

Maize 4.5 49 32 387 2100

Potato 10.3 0.1 82 110 3050

Sugarcane

57.0 187 31 67 5300

The alcohol production potential of different plants

Aim: to increase the starch content of wheat for increasing bio- ethanol yield

STARCH RAW PROTEIN,GLUTEN

Material and methods

Treatment: manganese carbohydrate

Plant: winter wheat

Phenological phase: booting

Way of application: foliar

Soil type: Danube alluvial, Darnózseli, Hungary

Experiment: 10 m2 plots, 4 repetitions, randomised block design

Doses: 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 kgha-1 Mn

pH KA CaCO3 Humus%

AL-solublemgkg-1

Mgmgkg-1

EDTA-solublemgkg-1

H2O KCl P2O5 K2O Na Zn Cu Mn Fe

7.7 7.3 42 5.1 2.1 228 205 51 58 1.2 0.9 18 19.7

Soil analysis results. Darnózseli 2005.

There was not any significant yield increase due to the treatments (LSD5% = 0.57).

The effect of the treatments on the yield

4,7

5 4,9

4,7

4,6

4,4

4,5

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,9

5

Yiel

d t/h

a

Dosekg/ha

0 0,05 0,1 0,3 0,5

The Mn-complexes increased the yield generally, the highest yield was measured at the 0.05 kgha-1 dose, at the higher doses the yield decreased.

The lowest yield was measured at 0.5 kgha-1 Mn dose, the value was lower than that of the control.

Raw protein content

13,2

12,612,7

12,9

13,1

12,312,412,512,612,712,812,913

13,113,2

Raw

pro

tein

%

Dosekg/ha

0 0,05 0,1 0,3 0,5

The manganese treatments decreased the protein content. We measured the lowest protein content at the Mn-dose of 0.05 kgha-1. The Mn-doses higher than this increased the protein content a little, but it was still lower than the protein content of the control.

Starch content

57

58,2

58,7 58,7

57,8

56

56,5

57

57,5

58

58,5

59

Star

ch %

Dosekg/ha

0 0,05 0,1 0,3 0,5

As a result of the treatments the starch content increased and at the 0.1 and 0.3 kgha-1 Mn-saccharose treatment the increase of the starch content was significant

(LSD5% = 1.5).

Conclusions

The lower doses of Mn-saccharose increased the yield.

The 0.05 kgha-1 increased the yield the most, but it still was not significant.

At the same time at this dose we measured the lowest (12.63 m%) raw protein content.

Due to the raising Mn-doses the starch content increased, compared to the control. This increase was significant in the case of the Mn-dose of 0.1 kgha-1 and 0,3

kgha-1.

Thank you for your attention!